Yes. That is my claim. If a book is the inspired word of god, it should be verifiably true and accurate.
That's what Norman Geisler and other inerrant believers say, it is true and accurate.
That lying maroon Geisler and his buddies are a lot of things, but inerrant most certainly isn't one of them.
The only reason it seems inaccurate to some people is that either they don't see symbolism, or for example they mistake "different" accounts for "wrong" accounts.
Different from what actually happened = wrong.
And pretending that your Big Book of Fairytales is sometimes a true and accurate account and sometimes allegorical based on nothing more than the whim of the apologist involved is as intellectually bankrupt as all of your arguments.
For example one person writes of two angels being at the tomb and another writer says one. That is a different account but one does not contradict the other.
Except that that's exactly what it's doing. Two different accounts of a single event is, by definition, a contradiction.
If one would have said there were 2 angels at the tomb and the other would have said there is "only" one angel then that would have been a contradiction, but they didn't say "only" one. It's like if I say get me a pencil, "there is one in that drawer". If the person opens the drawer and there are two pencils, that doesn't mean I was wrong. There is one pencil in the drawer (but there is also two). I would have been wrong however if I would have said there is "only" one pencil in the drawer.
This rubbish doesn't even qualify as weaseling - it's just complete balderdash
Also, as one expert reported in a quote, it is almost impossible to 100% accurately translate the exact meaning into another language. But even with a partial translation you can usually get acceptable accuracy, but not always.
This insight comes from your exrensive knowledge of ancient and modern languages, does it?
How many languages are you literate in, DOC?
That is also probably the reason for some of the problems. But a bible that is not 100 clear doesn't necessarily mean it is not 100% accurate.
Yes, it does, as a matter of fact.
ETA: I notice that you actually went back and edited your post to add bolding to this particular sentence and still didn't notice that there's an obvious error in it. Does 'irony' mean the same thing to you as it does to the rest of us, DOC?
The vast majority of Christians don't put every verse under a microscope, they see the big picture and they accept that big picture.
The vast majority of Christians aren't here making the ridiculous arguments you are in what you hope to be support of biblical accuracy, so you don't get to invoke them.
It's
your drivel that's being taken to task here, not theirs.
This can be compared to many skeptics who except the big Bang and abiogenesis without knowing almost anything about the details.
No it can't. All it can be compared to is your record of spouting utter nonsense on topics of which you have absolutely no knowledge, especially, in the context of this thread, history.
